The April
22nd kidnapping of Syrian archbishops Mar
Gregorios Ibrahim of the Syriac Orthodox Church and Paul Yazigi of the Greek
Orthodox Church of Antioch, and the killing of their driver, has reminded us
once again of the vulnerability of ancient Christian
peoples living in the Middle East. More than 1,000 Christians have been
killed to date in the Syrian conflict and more than 80 churches have been
destroyed. The majority of Christians in Syria are Greek or Syriac Orthodox or Melkite Greek Catholic. This recent violence in Syria can remind us
to pray for suffering Christians in the Middle East and afford us the
opportunity to practice solidarity with our Greek
Catholic and Orthodox Christian brothers and sisters.

Catholic
World Report had the recent privilege of asking Archimandrite Robert Taft, SJ
for his perspective on current Orthodox-Catholic relations. Father Taft has
been the leading scholar in Byzantine liturgical studies for decades. Taft has
devoted his life to preserving the liturgical treasury of the East and building
bridges between Orthodox and Catholic Christians. As a young Jesuit, Taft first
became interested in the liturgical traditions of the Christian East while
teaching at the Baghdad Jesuit College in Iraq (1956-1959).

In
1963, Taft was ordained a Catholic priest of the Byzantine Slavonic (Russian)
Rite. He is Professor-emeritus of Oriental Liturgy at the Pontifical Oriental
Institute, Rome, where he received his doctorate in 1970 and remained to teach
for 38 years. The Oriental Institute is the most prestigious institute in the
world for Eastern Christian studies.

A
prolific writer, his bibliography comprises more than 800 articles and 26 books,
including A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (vols. II-VI),
Orientalia Christiana Analecta, Rome, 1978-2013. Several of his writings have
been translated into other languages.

Taft
is the personal friend of many prominent Orthodox scholars, living and
deceased, like Father Alexander Schmemann and Father John Meyendorff. He has
many friends in and ties to the Russian Orthodox community, where he is admired
and respected. For example, he directed the doctoral studies for both of St.
Vladimir Seminary’s liturgical professors: Paul Meyendorff and Father Alexander
Rentel.

CWR: Father Robert,
thank you very much for your willingness to share with us some of your recent
thoughts on Eastern Christian ecumenism.

Many people who are sensitive to Orthodox-Catholic
dialogue noticed that when Pope Francis appeared on the balcony a month ago, he
was not only very humble, but spoke of the Church of Rome as the Church “which
presides in love” and referred to himself as the bishop of Rome concerned for
the Christians of Rome. These past few weeks he has definitely set the tone for
his pontificate.

This quotation from the second-century letter of St. Ignatius
of Antioch to the Roman Church, “which presides in love,” could not have been
coincidence considering Pope Francis’ noteworthy sensitivities to Eastern
Christian ecclesiology. Plus, the historically unprecedented response to
Francis’ election in the form of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s attendance
at the papal installation Mass seems to mark Pope Francis as another welcomed
bridge-builder between East and West. As an
aside, I think it is beautiful that pontifex
means “bridge-builder” in Latin. Perhaps Pope Francis will bring a new
understanding of that title through his ecumenical dialogue and his local focus
on the duties of the bishop of Rome? Could you comment on how you think Pope
Francis’ humble “style” will be viewed by Orthodox Christians?

Taft: Pope Francesco is making a wonderful impression on most of the
world by just being himself, the self of a real Christian in love, not with
himself or his image, but with what real Christians love…God and all His
creatures He died to save, especially the poor and needy and downtrodden. This
has come across clearly to all of us, including Orthodox I know, who as real
Christians can spot a fellow-Christian a mile away.

In addition, even more interesting from the ecumenical
perspective is Francesco’s emphasis on his primary title, “Bishop of Rome.”
Because a prelate’s title to his primacy comes from his local primatial see,
not from some personal or super-imposed ecclesiological distinction. I can’t
imagine that any of our attentive Orthodox observers have missed that!

CWR: Most Catholics
probably envision future unity between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic
Church as a re-installment of one world Church organization with the pope of
Rome at the top of the governing pyramid. A look at history shows that such a
model never existed, so what could Orthodox-Catholic communion actually look
like if it were achieved? A renewal of Eucharistic communion? The possibility
of an eighth ecumenical council? A resolution for the dating of Pascha/Easter?

Taft: What it would look
like is not a “reunion” with them “returning to Rome,” to which they never
belonged anyway; nor us being incorporated by them, since we are all ancient
apostolic “Sister Churches” with
a valid episcopate and priesthood and the full panoply of sacraments needed to
minister salvation to our respective faithful, as is proclaimed in the renewed
Catholic ecclesiology since Vatican II and enshrined in numerous papal
documents from Paul VI on, as well as in the wonderful Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we just need to restore our
broken communion and the rest of the problems you mention can be addressed one
by one and resolved by common accord.

·
Mutual
recognition: The numerous
Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church would have to “explicitly recognize
each other as authentic embodiments of the one Church of Christ, founded on the
apostles”;

·
A
common confession of faith: The
“Filioque” ought to be dropped in
order to reflect the common
Confession of Faith “canonized at the Council of Constantinople in
381”;

·
Accepted
diversity: Orthodox-Catholic
Christians would “live in full ecclesial communion with each other without
requiring any of the parts to forego its own traditions and practices”;

·
Liturgical
sharing: “Members of all
the Churches in communion would be able to receive the sacraments in the other
Churches”;

·
Synodality/conciliarity: “Bishops of all the Churches would be
invited to participate fully in any ecumenical councils that might be summoned.

Synodality would
operate at various levels of ecclesial institutions: local, regional, and
worldwide”;

·
Mission: “As sister Churches, they would also
engage in common efforts to promote the realization of a Christian moral vision
in the world”;

·
Subsidiarity: “Those elected to major episcopal or
primatial offices would present themselves to other Church leaders at their
level”;

·
Renewal
and reform. They would “commit
themselves to continuing [Christian] renewal and growthtogether.”

The
statement goes on to say, “Conscience holds us back from celebrating our unity as
complete in sacramental terms, until it is complete in faith, Church structure,
and common action.” Can you clarify what you mean by “restoring our broken communion” so that the other existing problems “can
be addressed one by one and resolved by common accord”? It seems
like we already have “mutual recognition,” “accepted diversity,” and “mission”;
what is the next step and how many steps will it take before we get to “liturgical
sharing” which is what I think of when you say “broken communion?”

Taft:
Yes, much that is
put forward in this excellent historic document is already a reality or on the
way to being so. For instance there is no “Filioque” in the Creed Russian
Catholics chant in our Slavonic liturgy, and some years ago Rome issued a
clarification of its Trinitarian belief about which the late French Orthodox
theologian Olivier Clément said if that is the Catholic teaching on the issue
then the problem has been resolved. As for “ecumenical councils,” the Catholic
Church might specify more clearly its list of those, which as far as I know we
have never defined. Are the purely Roman Catholic post-schism councils to be
considered ecumenical councils of the undivided Church? If so, says who?

CWR: How could the
papal claims of Rome be modified in a way that would be both acceptable to the
Orthodox Churches and faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church? Do you
think the jurisdiction issue really is a hang-up for the Orthodox since they
also practice cross-jurisdiction throughout Western Europe, the Americas,
Australia, and East Asia?

Taft: The new Catholic
“Sister Churches” ecclesiology describes not only how the Catholic Church views
the Orthodox Churches. It also represents a startling revolution in how the
Catholic Church views itself: we are no longer the only kid on the block, the
whole Church of Christ, but one Sister Church among others. Previously, the
Catholic Church saw itself as the original one and only true Church of Christ
from which all other Christians had separated for one reason or another in the
course of history, and Catholics held, simplistically, that the solution to
divided Christendom consisted in all other Christians returning to Rome’s
maternal bosom.

Vatican
II, with an assist from those Council Fathers with a less naïve Disney-World
view of their own Church’s past, managed to put aside this historically
ludicrous, self-centered, self-congratulatory perception of reality. In doing
so they had a strong assist from the Council Fathers of the Melkite Greek Catholic
Church whose concrete experience of the realities of the Christian East made
them spokesmen and defenders of that reality.

In
this context I would recommend the excellent new book by Robert Louis Wilken, The
First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity (New Haven &
London: Yale U. Press 2012). Professor Wilken, a convert to Catholicism who is
a recognized expert on Early Christianity and its history and literature, shows
that Early Christianity developed not out of some Roman cradle but as a
federation of local Churches, Western and Eastern, each one under the authority
of a chief hierarch who would come to be called Archbishop, Pope, Patriarch, or
Catholicos, each with its own independent governing synod and polity, all of
them initially in communion with one another until the vicissitudes of history
led to lasting divisions.

CWR: Many Orthodox
theologians claim that even if the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople or
the Patriarch of Moscow were to unite with Rome tomorrow, the lay faithful and
the monastics would probably not accept it and therefore there would be no
actual union. Given the history of Lyons and Florence do you think this is true,
or has the Orthodox mood changed recently?

Taft: Part of the
problem is that some Orthodox do not instruct their people adequately and
update them, so ecumenical progress on the upper level often does not filter
down to the ordinary faithful. In addition of course, there is the problem of
the bigotry of many of the monastics and others towards anyone who is not
Orthodox. On how they square this with what Christianity is supposed to be
according to Jesus’ explicit teaching in the New Testament, we still await
their explanation. One Catholic remedy for thisits usefulness proven by the
rage it provokes in the exposed bigotsis the factual diffusion of their views,
objectively and without editorial comment, in publications like Irénikon in French, or in English Father
Ronald Roberson’s highly informative monthly SEIA
Newsletter on
the Eastern Churches and Ecumenism, distributed gratis to subscribers via
email and eventually preserved for permanent reference in the Eastern Churches Journal.
These publications just give the news without comment, including quotations
from the bigots permanently recorded for posterity, thereby exposing them to
the public embarrassment they merit. This is especially important for some
representatives of Orthodoxy who speak out of both sides of their mouth, saying
one thing at international ecumenical venues, and quite another for the
consumption of Orthodox audiences or in publications they do not expect the
non-Orthodox to read.

CWR: You mentioned the
fact that documenting statements from Orthodox representatives has the
potential to nail down the real arguments and eradicate equivocation. How has modern technology, especially the Internet,
helped (or hindered) ecumenical dialogue?

Taft: Anything that helps spread the news and the flood of ever-new
documentation on inter-church relations can only be viewed positively. And it
is a mistake to think that this is not true in countries of the less-developed
so-called “third world,” where those interested in the rest of the world are
often more computer-literate than those of us in the West. Some of my Orthodox
friends in far away countries are computer whizzes compared to me!

CWR: It seems as
though Western Catholic theologians have been interested in Eastern theology
for the past 1,500 years and have generally sought to integrate it into their
own theology. On the other hand, many modern Eastern Orthodox theologians are very
leery about anything Western and have furthermore severed themselves from their
roots in Hellenic philosophy. Is this statement accurate? Is this a recent
phenomenon? And are there any schools of Eastern Orthodox theology that do not
see the integration of Western theology and philosophical inquiry as a threat
to Eastern theology?

Taft: First of all, the roots of ALL of us include a Neo-Platonic
heritage that no one has abandoned in East or West since it is part of
Christianity’s DNA, so drop that notion. As for Orthodox theologians, we must
distinguish the second-stringers from the best ones. Lest my list be endless,
let me mention just a few in each Orthodox Church who are fully conversant with
present western Catholic theology. Among the Greeks: Metropolitans Kallistos
Ware and Ioannes Zizioulas, Archpriest Stefanos Alexopoulos, Prof. Pantelas Kalaitzidis of Volos, and the professors of
Holy Cross Hellenic Greek College in Brighton, Massachusetts. Among the Russian
Orthodox: Metropolitan Ilarion Alfayev, Sr. Dr. Vassa Larin, Protoierej Mixail
Zheltov, and numerous others. Then in the USA we have the Professors of St.
Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary of the OCA, and on and on. So there are in fact
plenty of top Orthodox theologians au
courant in modern non-Orthodox theological thought.

About the Author

Christopher B. Warner

Christopher B. Warner, a former Marine Corps officer and veteran, is a graduate student of Orthodox theology at the Antiochian House of Studies. Christopher has a BA in Catholic theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. He has worshipped with the Eastern Christian community since 2001, and currently serves as a cantor for his parish of St. George in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Christopher and his wife, Katy, are both teachers at Trinity Academy.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.